Kansas Crimson

Doesn't matter what you or I think, only 100 Senators matter.

Geezer wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:17 pm Moral difference?? This Congress or this administration. Please.

It is what it is, regardless of your feelings about it. Slander and defamation aren’t subject to qualifiers.

but for real what high school lets their kids publish shit like that?

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:18 pm

Geezer wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:17 pm Moral difference?? This Congress or this administration. Please.

It is what it is, regardless of your feelings about it. Slander and defamation aren’t subject to qualifiers.

9 pages and counting all for some fake news?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:36 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:18 pm

Geezer wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:17 pm Moral difference?? This Congress or this administration. Please.

It is what it is, regardless of your feelings about it. Slander and defamation aren’t subject to qualifiers.

9 pages and counting all for some fake news?

9 pages of conjecture and questionable “memories”. Some people should lose their jobs over this, but it sure as heck isn’t Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh doesn't even have the job yet.

how often can a candidate be interviewed, the employer calls the references, allegations of sex assault come up and the employer reacts, meh just conjecture and questionable memories

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:56 pm Kavanaugh doesn't even have the job yet.

how often can a candidate be interviewed, the employer calls the references, allegations of sex assault come up and the employer reacts, meh just conjecture and questionable memories

Comparing this to a regular job interview is like comparing the US fiscal budget to a family's household budget.

Mjl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:19 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:56 pm Kavanaugh doesn't even have the job yet.

how often can a candidate be interviewed, the employer calls the references, allegations of sex assault come up and the employer reacts, meh just conjecture and questionable memories

Comparing this to a regular job interview is like comparing the US fiscal budget to a family's household budget.

Fuck, Trump is going to piss away my savings?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:34 pm but for real what high school lets their kids publish shit like that?

Jesuits.

Fucking Jesuits.

If it's all merely slander and defamation, why was there none of this about Gorsuch? He went to the same high school.

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:46 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:44 pm so why can’t this be called strategy by the libtards?

and, as has been asserted, why do so many people avoid calling this credible?

My problem with calling it strategy is that with Garland, they simply refused to confirm, whereas they are intentionally smearing, and, in my opinion, trying to ruin Kavanaugh. In my view, that is a huge moral difference.

If only there were a way to, like, look into...evaluate...ascertain...inquire on...research...probe...Ford's (and Ramirez's) claims, and the nominee's candor.

There's a word here. I just can't quite get it.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:56 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:46 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:44 pm so why can’t this be called strategy by the libtards?

and, as has been asserted, why do so many people avoid calling this credible?

My problem with calling it strategy is that with Garland, they simply refused to confirm, whereas they are intentionally smearing, and, in my opinion, trying to ruin Kavanaugh. In my view, that is a huge moral difference.

If only there were a way to, like, look into...evaluate...ascertain...inquire on...research...probe...Ford's (and Ramirez's) claims, and the nominee's candor.

There's a word here. I just can't quite get it.

If there were anything to know, the FBI would have found in during the vetting process. This is melodrama, pure and simple, designed to delay the inevitable.

Could you imagine how OuTrAgEd psych would be if libtards were trying to ram through a scotus judge instead of investigating credible allegations of assault?

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:56 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:46 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:44 pm so why can’t this be called strategy by the libtards?

and, as has been asserted, why do so many people avoid calling this credible?

My problem with calling it strategy is that with Garland, they simply refused to confirm, whereas they are intentionally smearing, and, in my opinion, trying to ruin Kavanaugh. In my view, that is a huge moral difference.

If only there were a way to, like, look into...evaluate...ascertain...inquire on...research...probe...Ford's (and Ramirez's) claims, and the nominee's candor.

There's a word here. I just can't quite get it.

I agree. We should start with the emails to and from her attorney detailing how she came, over the period of the last week, to "recall" both that Brett Kavanaugh was at the party and that it his junk in her face. Also, the information detailing how the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee managed to seek her out, despite the fact that she had lodged no previous complaint.

And by Thursday, if possible.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:27 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:56 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:46 pm

My problem with calling it strategy is that with Garland, they simply refused to confirm, whereas they are intentionally smearing, and, in my opinion, trying to ruin Kavanaugh. In my view, that is a huge moral difference.

If only there were a way to, like, look into...evaluate...ascertain...inquire on...research...probe...Ford's (and Ramirez's) claims, and the nominee's candor.

There's a word here. I just can't quite get it.

I agree. We should start with the emails to and from her attorney detailing how she came, over the period of the last week, to "recall" both that Brett Kavanaugh was at the party and that it his junk in her face. Also, the information detailing how the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee managed to seek her out, despite the fact that she had lodged no previous complaint.

And by Thursday, if possible.

I certainly agree that falsely accusing someone of sexual assault is a very serious matter that should carry with it serious consequences. It is worthy of investigation.

This dude could be a violent sexual predator convicted how many times over, but so long as he was also a “conservative constitutionalist” who made psych feel like he’s on the side that’s “winning,” he would still want him confirmed ASAP

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:26 am Could you imagine how OuTrAgEd psych would be if libtards were trying to ram through a scotus judge instead of investigating credible allegations of assault?

That's the point. They are not credible by any reasonable standard.

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:22 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:56 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:46 pm

My problem with calling it strategy is that with Garland, they simply refused to confirm, whereas they are intentionally smearing, and, in my opinion, trying to ruin Kavanaugh. In my view, that is a huge moral difference.

If only there were a way to, like, look into...evaluate...ascertain...inquire on...research...probe...Ford's (and Ramirez's) claims, and the nominee's candor.

There's a word here. I just can't quite get it.

If there were anything to know, the FBI would have found in during the vetting process. This is melodrama, pure and simple, designed to delay the inevitable.

There's so much to unpack here.

1. The FBI, in its vetting process, was not and could not be tasked with proving a global negative (namely, that Kavanaugh has not ever done anything that could be disqualifying). Is it possible that there was some strategy in play in terms of when exactly this information came out? Sure. Is it possible that that strategy was even motivated, at least in part, by bad faith? Sure.

But this is a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court in question. Getting the confirmation right (or duly withholding it) is the only thing that really matters. Certainly, the GOP knew there would be a ton of political opposition to this nomination, given the timing considerations involved. One would think their own pre-vetting would have covered this.

2. Are there possibly "sensational and exaggerated" elements to this (such that it is a "melodrama")? Sure. But, again, lifetime Supreme Court appointment. And I would again note that this is not about (or at least should not be about) only whether the nominee's actions at 17 (or 15, or 20, or 50) are in and of themselves disqualifying. Also at issue is the nominee's candor, generally, and particularly in this and his prior confirmation proceedings.

3. Confirmation may or may not be "inevitable". If it is, it will be because the GOP's political and doctrinal priorities take precedent over the country's supposed interests in selecting, vetting and confirming individuals to serve lifetime appointments on the Supreme Court.

Jfish wrote: One would think their own pre-vetting would have covered this.

^^^^

Considering the political climate, and the #metoo movement, and a potus already accused of how many sex assault and other scandals, and the shamelessness and hypocrisy of how other nominees had been handled, and the opposition that could obviously be expected, you’d think that pubs could have found a nominee with no skeletons in the closet.

But go figure!

He had them at “sitting president should not be indicted”

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:35 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:27 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:56 am

If only there were a way to, like, look into...evaluate...ascertain...inquire on...research...probe...Ford's (and Ramirez's) claims, and the nominee's candor.

There's a word here. I just can't quite get it.

I agree. We should start with the emails to and from her attorney detailing how she came, over the period of the last week, to "recall" both that Brett Kavanaugh was at the party and that it his junk in her face. Also, the information detailing how the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee managed to seek her out, despite the fact that she had lodged no previous complaint.

And by Thursday, if possible.

I certainly agree that falsely accusing someone of sexual assault is a very serious matter that should carry with it serious consequences. It is worthy of investigation.

Yeah, but I'm not accusing Ms. Ramirez of anything other than allowing herself to used as a pawn in a very twisted game. Investigations should start with her lawyers and those from the Judiciary Committee who sought her out and suggested that she "reassess" her memories.

If you're up for that, I'm in too.